Email

On May 25, the Supreme Court of Pakistan suspended Farahnaz Ispahani’s membership of the National Assembly on the grounds of dual citizenship (of Pakistan and the United States). A three-member bench, headed by the chief justice, observed that Ispahani could not participate in National Assembly proceedings on account of her dual nationality. And just yesterday, as a follow-up, Rehman Malik’s Senate membership was also suspended by the apex court, on account of him holding dual nationality of United Kingdom. Crux of the issue, as discussed by the Supreme Court, has been that those who owe fidelity to another country cannot be entrusted with adequately safeguarding the interests of Pakistan.

The case raises a number of issues worth consideration. Is dual nationality illegal per se? Or is it only a bar for contesting and/or serving as a member of the parliament? Does the law, as it stands today, address the very valid concern that those whose fidelity to Pakistan is questionable should not be members of the parliament? Or, do the law and constitution, while attempting to address this issue, miss the point entirely?

The legal provisions underlying this issue must be considered. First, it needs to be clarified that ‘citizenship’, in Pakistan, is governed by the provisions of The Citizenship Act, 1951 (II of 1951). In particular, section 14 of The Citizenship Act, 1951 lays down the law regarding dual citizenship or nationality. Barring a few exceptions (relating to age and marriage) this section stipulates that a person shall “cease to be a citizen of Pakistan” upon acquiring another nationality. However, subsection (3) of section 14 states that this bar would not apply to any person who “is also the citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or of such other country as the Federal Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, specify in this behalf.” In essence, this means that acquiring a second nationality does not strip any person of his/her Pakistani nationality, so long as that other (acquired) nationality is of a country that the Federal Government has so notified.

Fair enough. Dual nationality, therefore, is not impermissible in all cases. What, then, is the problem in cases concerning dual nationality and membership of the parliament? Studying the Constitution of Pakistan – in particular Article 63 (the disqualification provisions for members of the parliament) is helpful in this case.

Article 63 (1)(c) of the Constitution states that a person shall be disqualified from being elected or serving as a member of the parliament if he/she “ceases to be a citizen of Pakistan, or acquires the citizenship of a foreign State.” The intention of the legislature here, as apparent from comments of the Supreme Court in the Ispahani case, is that if you have “acquired” citizenship of a foreign state (or given up/lost your Pakistani citizenship) there is reason to believe that your sense of belonging and allegiance to Pakistan is so weak as to be unworthy of being a member of the parliament. Put another way, the idea of citizenship has been equated with a sense of ‘patriotism.’ And to the extent that you ‘acquire’ another citizenship, your sense of patriotism is unworthy of elected office.

In the case of a person who “ceases to be a citizen of Pakistan”, the constitutional provision makes sense. However, in the second part of the provision, the language does not bar anyone who “has dual nationality” – no. The bar is only against someone who “acquires” a foreign citizenship. A number of issues flow from this.

First, the provision expressly disqualifies a person who “acquires” a foreign nationality. However, conversely, the bar of disqualification from being a member of the parliament does not affect a person who was born a foreign national and later “acquires” Pakistani citizenship. Such a person is carefully carved out of the disqualification clause, and such person’s loyalty to the State is (apparently) deemed ‘stronger’ than someone who does the reverse. Now, the natural example of someone acquiring Pakistani nationality would be a person of Pakistani origin, who was born abroad and later becomes a citizen of Pakistan. However, expanding the logic a little, even a foreign national (say some guy named Raymond Davis, for example) who “acquires” Pakistani citizenship is not disqualified under Article 63(1)(c) per se.

Second, even if a stretched-out argument is made to suggest that the acquiring of Pakistani nationality is a declaration of loyalty to the State of Pakistan and acquiring a foreign nationality is the opposite thereof, the logic falls apart when applied to real-life examples. For example, Javed Ahmed Ghamdi, who has had to flee Pakistan after his criticism of the Salmaan Taseer murder, may have to (out of compulsion) seek citizenship of another country to live there (for his safety). In such a case, a person like Ghamdi (despite his apparent love for Pakistan and for Islam) will be disqualified from seeking public office under Article 63(1)(c). On the other hand, if some Afghan militant, who may even have fought against the Pakistan army, subsequently takes refuge in our country for long enough to become its citizen, can easily make a bid for elected office. Is Ghamdi’s loyalty and fidelity to the State of Pakistan less than that of such a militant? Does Article 63(1)(c), the way it is drafted at present, address the issue of loyalty to the State of Pakistan? Does it accurately measure a person’s sense of patriotism?

Third, it must also be asked whether holding a passport from a particular country alone is an appropriate measure of an individual’s loyalty and patriotism to that State? Should other factors not trump, or at least supplement, the issue of nationality in measuring an individual’s patriotism? What about a person who acquires a foreign citizenship but has all his/her assets in Pakistan, pays the full measure of taxes on such assets and generates employment in our economy, vis-à-vis someone (say Asif Zardari or Nawaz Sharif) who is not a foreign national but has his/her assets abroad? Who is more loyal, and therefore better suited, to being a member of the parliament?

There is no squabbling with the idea that members of the parliament should have an unimpeachable record of patriotism and loyalty to the state of Pakistan. But the truth is that there can be no objective measure of calibrating a person’s loyalty to the State. Any attempt to ascertain loyalty and patriotism must necessarily look beyond the contours of a mere passport or nationality, towards a more comprehensive assessment. And the disqualification provision of Article 63(1)(c), as it reads for now, certainly does not address the issue.

The author is a lawyer based in Lahore. He has a Masters in Constitutional Law from Harvard Law School. He can be reached at: saad@post.harvard.edu

The views expressed by this blogger and in the following reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Dawn Media Group.

Comments (58) Closed

sherdil khan

Jun 05, 2012 02:41pm

Absolutely right.....Totally agree.

Recommend0

Nasira

Jun 07, 2012 06:21pm

I agree with the author, citizenship of another country does not mean ialoyality to the country. But then the writer is a Harvard graduate and most judges in this country are lawyers who couldnt make it in the profession. Na

Recommend0

Ali

Jun 05, 2012 07:58pm

I hold dual citizenship and I support this ban, us dual citizens simply dont have the same stakes in Pakistan as others (Although it doesnt mean we love Pakistan any less). If a dual citizen decided to contest national elections in Pakistan it is open for them to renounce their adopted nationality- Public office demands this sacrifice!

Recommend0

Detroit

Jun 06, 2012 04:32am

Where did you get this WRONG information from ? The United States allows dual citizenship!

Recommend0

HWG

Jun 06, 2012 12:29am

The main issue is there are people who show that they care for Pakistan, but have their assets, children and interests in other countries. So if they are associated in a decision making process, they may be influenced by self interst over national interest when formulating policies which may go against their interests abroad. But we also have to see whether such people have necessarily acted against the interest Pakistan. But who is to decide on these matters? The provisions of Pakistan constitution are appropriate, and it should be left to the Supreme court of Pakisan to interprete that and recommend action. At the same time those whose citizenship is unadulterated should not be considered to the only one who can act in the interest of Pakistan, which seems to be the need of the hour.

Recommend0

n.qureshi

Jun 05, 2012 07:36pm

dual nationality and overseas accounts for politicians is unpatriotic.

Recommend0

Cyrus Howell

Jun 05, 2012 07:21pm

"When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty"
-- Thomas Jefferson
"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government."
-- Thomas Paine

Recommend0

Rev Eldrick Lal

Jun 05, 2012 07:19pm

Well written article. We need more articles similar to this.

Recommend0

qalim

Jun 05, 2012 11:53am

Particular cases and political posturing apart, the case law will set good precedents in coming days. In that other constitutional democracy, the United States, one cannot even become a president if born abroad to US nationals. These days the oaths of citizenship are such that to be true to one oath, a dual national by default will end up being unfaithful to the other. Much preferred that this conflict of interest is not tested in mortals who become members of any legislature....
Rehman Malik or Lord Nazir are equally unacceptable as members of British Parliament if thy continue to hold Pakistani nationality. But as the author points out, aspiring members should have a wider, more objective testing of their loyalties and political parties should look beyond such loyalties only to the dear leader!

Recommend0

Owais Masood

Jun 05, 2012 10:54am

I am not a student of law, But I think allowing public office bearers to hold dual nationalities is against the interest of people of Pakistan. I believe that the parliamentarian and executive who are responsible for public welfare should be barred from leveraging their foreign nationalities to leave Pakistan when they are subjected to judicial inquiries.

Recommend0

Imran

Jun 05, 2012 11:13am

I am amazed and astonished at the media public relations skill of Ms. Farahnaz Isphahani. She has managed to stir a non-issue debate with the help of apprentice novice lawyers. This skill of managing public opinion and stirring doubts into public mind.
Although her honesty and character is revealed in declaring dual nationality but at the same time the dexterity and versatility in a loud media campaign on that issue is quite interesting.
I am totally against dual nationalities. The dual nationals enjoy rights and perks and social benefits of developed countries and I feel jealous

Recommend0

aku

Jun 06, 2012 08:34am

It is a matter of allegiance. So I do not support dual natioinal to be part of the state machinery. But with the current breed of politicians, who cares. I would rather have a sincere desi gora to be the presdent rather than a corrupt, criminal minded wadera.

Recommend0

Zee You

Jun 06, 2012 08:45pm

Sorry my friend but I think you have mixed a few issues here, besides making some inaccurate statements:
1. The government has not raised the issue. It is the Supreme court that is dealing with this issue.
2. This is not a "new" law as you put it, the Citizenship Act was promulgated in 1951 and our constitution was written in 1973.
If the law of the land says that if you have acquired the nationality of another country then you are not eligible to stand for elections, then that is what it says and that is besides your personal opinions on the wisdom behind the law.
The point of this rule is not, as you said, to put it "judge someone's patriotism". The law tries to protect people in public office to pursue interests which may not always be in the interest of the country and that is a genuine concern. Mere existence of another nationality does provide a good basis of a risk of being unfaithful to one country.
As to your point about other countries taking action: This does not concern them at all, as this is not an issue re whether someone should be allowed to hold a dual nationality or not (where in most cases arrangements are mutual with countries) but this is a local question for Pakistani politicians. So this provision in law does not at all prejudice those mutual arrangement on dual nationality we might have with other countries.
Your point about remittances: I think remitting money into the country is only helpful for the country, whereas before asking the same person who has foreign nationality to come and act as, say the finance minister for a few years the election commission would need to be sure that the person's long term interests are with Pakistan.
And I know that there are a lot of other issues in our country that need to be tackled, but that does not mean that this issue is not important. Also it is not like we have a binary choice of whether this issue or that. We can always aim to address all issues that come to attention.
So I think you have missed the point altogether.

Recommend0

CAIRNS

Jun 07, 2012 12:09pm

I think as far as armed forces are concerned....u r not allowed to have dual nationality. I know this from my background..also one of my cousin in UK wanted to apply in PAK army but was told to first surrender his British NATIONALITY, WHICH HE DIDNT SO WASNT ALLOED IN...!!!!!

Recommend0

ali akbar

Jun 07, 2012 12:06am

I found several weaknesses in argument. I will talk about each one of them but I would like to start by saying that laws are based on customs and norms of a society and are an outcome of a proper policy making process. A process that is also dependent upon proper context. So if someone's elected representative in Pakistan was found to have acquired a nationality, what is the first thing that will come to a majority's (of the constituents) mind?
Here are some questions that came to my mind upon reading your article:
- Why should a 'naturalized' Pakistani be superior to others as far as patriotism is concerned?
- Can patriotism be measured? One would think that this would be a highly subjective question? Has the constitution of any country attempted to define it - directly?
- I don't understand your example of an Afghan militant becoming a Pakistani by virtue of residence. If a militant is given citizenship under a 'refugee' status, then it would probably make sense. BUT, the important question is : Why would a 'militant' be given any sort of status in Pakistan?
- At the end, you talk you tried to make some sort of convenient link between wealth, job creation and patriotism. What has wealth and job creation got anything to do with patriotism? I could be an American owner of a huge franchise in Pakistan that employs thousands of Pakistanis. If I am a law abiding Pakistani citizen but chose to invest my wealth elsewhere and create jobs for several non-Pakistani citizens, will you brand me 'unpatriotic'?
- Also, what is the connection between tax compliance and patriotism? This is a slippery slope. Granted that there should be a proper system of taxation in the country and a policy to support it, by your argument, more than half of taxable persons in Pakistan will be 'unpatriotic'. In my opinion, this should not be a starting point.

Recommend0

BNS

Jun 06, 2012 10:37pm

Dont ever let US authorities know that you are a Canadian citizen as well otherwise you will find out the facts the hard way. I know someonme very close who did.

Recommend0

@badnoc

Jun 06, 2012 10:36am

On one hand, when the non-resident and Pakistanis with dual nationalities remit/invest foreign currency into Pakistan they are encouraged and on the other hand they are not trusted, this is dual policy of the government. How can the government judge the patriotism a Pakistani who has acquired another passport on account of his/her living abroad be different from the one who does not have any? Unlike the Middle Eastern Arab countries where you live all your life and they don't give you any citizenship, and they still want you to invest in their countries (Dubai real estate market is an example) whereas the UK, USA and Canada allow dual nationalities and provide equal rights to every citizen, which is fair and democratic.
Now, suddenly the Pakistan government has picked up this point to make an example that whomsoever they don't like (I am not favouring Isphani or Rehman Malik) they can strip them from the senate or, govt. post by saying they owe fidelity to another country? Also, I have heard that this is being done because by virtue of holding another passport they can fled the country easily. This is absurd because, if any of the top politicians or a general wants to fled the country without having a dual citizenship, he can do so faster than a mere senator or a govt. official.
Therefore, imo this new (or may be an existing law) law has come to the limelight only to divert attention of the public from major issues that are prevailing in the country. The SC and the constitution cannot do anything against the PM of the country, the memo-gate scandal fizzled out without any decision, the lawlessness and uncertainty in the country is at its peak, the economy is in tatters and nothing is being done in that respect, whereas issues like this dual citizenship is the talk of the day? Why should it be so important when it is not illegal? The UK, USA and the Canadian governments allow dual citizenship so, why cry so much over this trivial issue?
What if the other countries impose a ban on the non-residents from PK and other sub-continent countries that they should not send any money back to their country of previous residence? The amount may not be in billions but definitely in hundreds of millions of dollars. Is Pakistan ready to deal with another foreign exchange crisis?

Recommend0

riaz

Jun 06, 2012 10:31am

yes that's right. there should be a law like this, atleast the conditions of government schools and hospital will be better and it will also b beneficial for other students and patients going to government schools and hospital.

Recommend0

Spi-der-man

Jun 06, 2012 10:24am

If Patriotism to be equated with the country only on the basis of living over there - then why not make is compulsory for the holding Public office for individual who are only Born in Pakistan, Living in Pakistan, Buying and eating Pakistani food and Educating in Pakistani schools only - no Degree from abroad should be allowed even - because foreign education will somehow create hate for Pakistani society. After all this is a Land of PURE only.
No double personality , no dual nationality - aren't we living in ISOLATION in year 2012 !!!

Recommend0

riaz

Jun 06, 2012 10:16am

i agree and SC is doing the same protecting our country.

Recommend0

kdspirited

Jun 05, 2012 01:48pm

There is an obvious conflict of interest if you hold dual nationalities and representing PAkistani Government by definition. So incase of US citizenship one of the clauses in the oath is the right to take up arms and fight for the US if called upon against all its enemies. If the US is to attack Pakistan or create hostilaty how can a US citizen sitting in a PAkstani parliment pass a legislation against their own country of citizenship. Also this law holds true because in our day and age it is not a measure of patriotisim its a measure of how quickly you can escape Paksitan and hide in another country after commiting a crime in Pakistan. Most of those culprits are the parlimentarians.

Recommend0

sagecaptial

Jun 06, 2012 03:42am

Patriotism without nationality ?

Recommend0

Javed

Jun 06, 2012 02:55am

Because most of us abroad in DEVELOPED countries are generally LITERATE and have a more sophisticated broader understanding of how a country should be run in relation to the modern developed world. It's better than running the country with the tired old politicians as a 3rd world banana republic

Recommend0

RIP

Jun 05, 2012 10:51pm

Actually the US allows dual citizenship.

Recommend0

Saif

Jun 06, 2012 03:38pm

The US citizenship oath taken by naturalised citizens has the following clause:-
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen"
This in no form or shape means that a newly naturalised US citizen, loses his/her original citizenship. In 1986 the US supreme court ruled that the US has no right to determine whether a newly naturalsied US citizen has lost his/her original citizenship. That is between the individual and his/her original country of citizenship.
I hold Pakistani, Canadian and US citizenship. I have absolutely no ambition whatsoever to run for any public office in either of these three countries. Yet in my mind, I consider myself to be a part of the national fabric in all three countries. I keep all three of my passports valid at all times and I am within the realm of citizenship laws/regulations in all three countries.

Recommend0

Usman Anwar Rana

Jun 05, 2012 09:35pm

well said Saad! keep it up. The SC ruling looks absurd when "polls" say that every third Pakistani want to flee

Recommend0

A.S.

Jun 05, 2012 09:11pm

By restricting the options of our people we are preventing our own people from bringing western knowledge and technology and goodness to Pakistan.
We should encourage each other to be free and to prosper and then to share that prosperity with everyone (particularly fellow Pakistanis). Instead if we restrict each others' citizenship rights and each others' freedoms then it will be difficult for the most qualified people to help us.

Recommend0

Omar Ariff

Jun 06, 2012 12:54pm

That is a fatal misconception. We want people who have the welfare of the Pakistanis to be in charge. 'Top level people' or 'those with capability and merit' but are serving non-pakistani interests will be more detrimental than good. We are assuming that there are no 'top level people' who believe Pakistan is sufficient for them. that would be tragic.

"What good fortune for governments that the people do not think."
-- Adolf Hitler

Recommend0

Jacob

Jun 07, 2012 05:34am

I dont agree - The persons with dual nationality will have dual intention - will save all his money in foreign banks looted during his tenure as a minister from tax money (indirect tax) the poor people of Pakistan pays from their hard money. That's matters in leaving the country with looted money from poor people's pocket.

Recommend0

millerd

Jun 06, 2012 09:40am

My dear you have a very naive view of Politics in Pakistan. Yes you can be free and prosper in this country if you have a feudal, bureaucrat or an elite background , connected to right people who can get you elected or nominated to any office you like. Why do you think most elites children study abroad. Don't we have sustainable education in Pakistan , or they don't trust their own devised system.
Its a big ball game. Dual nationality for Parliamentarians, cabinet ministers and those serving in high positions in nations armed forces should be forbidden. No compromise on this issue.

Recommend0

millerd

Jun 06, 2012 09:25am

May be Imran Khan , at least for now , until he is tested

Recommend0

NASAH (USA)

Jun 06, 2012 02:27pm

As they say -- Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrels -- of all the countries Pakistan's should be the last to provide that refuge.

Recommend0

Junaid Hashmi

Jun 06, 2012 09:22am

"Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious."
Oscar Wilde

Recommend0

Mirza

Jun 06, 2012 09:12am

What about punishment for those who concealed this basic information to Election Commission? Or did Election Commission never asked this to the candidates ??Just suspending thier parlimenterian status does not provide the full justice to the people of Pakistan. Taking Oath is a big thing isnt it ? I wonder how people will face Allah...

Recommend0

millerd

Jun 06, 2012 09:09am

I am vehemently against dual nationality of politicians, bureaucrats and establishments. If their children and families are living overseas and getting education there , this means those dual nationality holders have two homes and therefore can never unilaterally act to benefit this country if the country of their second home is involved.
However an ordinary citizen who has no stakes in the running of this country is a different matter. As they are not directly involved in making decisions or formulating laws, or have access to sensitive information pertaining to the security and survival of this nation. Dual nationality may be allowed to them., but dual nationality to those in Parliament bureaucrats and establishments holding sensitive positions should be forbidden.
We should only allow those to lead us , who have no stakes overseas and they wont pack up and leave at the time of serious crisis or send their families away in the name of security.

Recommend0

Cyrus Howell

Jun 05, 2012 05:44pm

"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of
confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by
the chains of the Constitution."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Recommend0

Agha Ata

Jun 05, 2012 01:34pm

I thought PM Gilani was the only man who also possessed the portfolio of a Chief Justice to interpret LAW! Never mind. I have a question, is there any personality, a leader, or a wise and honest man whom you would follow without criticizing?

Recommend0

maida

Jun 05, 2012 01:30pm

nice saying!it is the truth....

Recommend0

Ashfaque Ghouri

Jun 05, 2012 01:25pm

I do not understand why politicians are always target of every discussion and court actions. Why never heard anything about bureaucrats, armed forces, and judiciary? Media should also publish their oath to see if there is a clause asking their citizenship status and should also publish their asset details, their lifestyle details (where they live, what clubs they go to), which schools they children go to and what fees they paying in respect to their salaries, and how much taxes they are paying.

Recommend0

Maroof Alam Kashkoli

Jun 05, 2012 01:22pm

that might work.....

Recommend0

Ahmed

Jun 05, 2012 01:02pm

As per the US law you have to forgo nationality of any other country if you want to become US Citizen. So its not just a case of Dual Nationality but Fraud as well.

Recommend0

sherdil khan

Jun 05, 2012 01:10pm

If the constitution says a Member of Parliament cannot be a citizen of ANOTHER country than the Supreme court must interpret the constitution. Their patriotism is Not questionable, but if you are living and raising your family in the west (most likely US/UK) and most likely you are not going to live in Pakistan and you

Recommend0

ali wajahat

Jun 05, 2012 12:51pm

all family member of mpa mna & senator should be bound to study in government school & college , and treatment form government hospital

Recommend0

Hasanalirana

Jun 05, 2012 12:48pm

well written article. the fundamental point is well discussed i.e is there any way to quantify the Patriotism of an indvidual. The obvious answer is NO. Yet, in a practical situation the nationality defines a persons interests and affiliations to a certain country. In case of ordinary citizens it is not a great deal (although some countries like India doesn't even allow Dual nationality for all its citizens). In the Modern world where each and every nation can have clash of interests with the other one. So, it is important to have at least the Holders of Public office in higher echelons/hierarchy of power to have at least legal affiliations to one country only.

Recommend0

G.Nabi

Jun 05, 2012 12:46pm

Section 14 of the Pakistan Citizenship Act 1951 and Article 63(1 c) of the Constitution.
If the constitution clearly forbids dual citizen ship, then there should be no 'if 'or 'but '------- MS Ispahani knew it, so did AAZ. You start making exceptions, better write a new constitution.

Recommend0

Zain Ansari

Jun 05, 2012 12:32pm

The dual nationals should not even be allowed to vote, How can you living abroad decide the fate of these Waterless, Poweless, Foodless Pakistanis??

Recommend0

khan

Jun 05, 2012 03:12pm

100% agree military generals and politicians are equally responsible, but we should not be protecting the politician. Politicians are elected public representative not sacred cows people have every right to criticize these corrupt politicians. Bureaucrats are used and abused by the politicians and military elites. IF we compare the politicians and military men, and see who have become rich and wealthy faster and who has increased their bank accounts and businesses it will be very clear Politicians will come up on top in abusing their power. I believe if our leaders are not living inside the country and among the people they will never understand the issues. It should be required for the public servants to live in Pakistan before and after their public service. Public office holders should be restricted in seeking medical attention abroad. So hopefully that will force them to improve public school systems hospitals and other basic public facilities in Pakistan.

Recommend0

Syed

Jun 05, 2012 03:06pm

The Constitution does not say whether the member of parliament "acquires" another citizenship before or after being elected. The clear intent is that a member of parliament should not have dual allegiance. The example of Mr. Ghamdi, for whom I have great respect, does not mean much because Mr. Ghamdi is not living in Pakistan and cannot elected. When the security situation improves and he does come back to seek political office, he should forfeit citizenship of other countries. Paying taxes is not a criterion for citizenship in any country!

Recommend0

zulfi

Jun 05, 2012 03:51pm

this is preceisely why we have a supreme court -- to determine whats the correct interpretation of the constitution
citizens of pakistan who have dual nationality can not and should not serve in the parliament/constitutional bodies

Recommend0

Yusaf

Jun 05, 2012 03:36pm

Dual national should not be allowed to send any money to Pakistan

Recommend0

Yusaf

Jun 05, 2012 03:35pm

If you want top level people to be in charge than I am afraid they may have dual passports. Also, it should be left to the Pakistani voter to decide whom they want to vote for. Why do you want to take that choice away from him?

Recommend0

Nadia

Jun 05, 2012 12:02pm

People representing the people of Pakistan must be Pakistani. They cannot and should not be citizens of another country, it's shows their mistrust, and lack of faith in being Pakistani in the first place.

Recommend0

Cyrus Howell

Jun 05, 2012 06:02pm

"Where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too
frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control."
-- Lord Acton (1834-1902)

Recommend0

Mali813

Jun 07, 2012 10:15pm

haha,,, well said Yusaf

Recommend0

Zeeshan Dogar

Jun 07, 2012 10:52pm

Most countries do not allow dual nationality for government positions. However, Pakistan is not like most countries and faces a crises. Foreign nationals with Pakistani citizenship, offer new ideas and opportunities. Their only reason for keeping a second passport is to act as an economic surety, in the event their move to Pakistan does not work well. Perhaps an exception can be made.